Editorial: Let Marlise Munoz die

1/1

Rex C. Curry/Special Contributor

Lynne and Ernest Machado, parents of Marlise Munoz, who has been brain dead and on life support for more than a month, with their grandson and Munoz's son, Mateo, 15 months, in Fort Worth. Munoz, who was found to be pregnant, fell brain dead from complications of what appeared to be a blood clot, but her family was denied their request to take her off life support because state law in Texas prohibits medical officials from doing so to pregnant patients.

Marlise Muñoz has had no brain function since November, when she collapsed from a blood clot in her lungs. Her wish was not to be kept artificially alive. Her parents and husband want to let her body die, and her brain-dead condition conforms to the definition of death under Texas law.

But another Texas law involves the 14-week-old fetus in her womb when she was admitted to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. The fetus still registers a heartbeat, although it’s unclear whether it also suffered the same brain-destroying oxygen deprivation that ended Muñoz’s life and whether additional, irreversible damage was inflicted by the electric shocks and drugs administered to revive Muñoz’s body.

As long as there’s a fetal heartbeat, doctors fear that removing support systems from Muñoz’s body could violate a law designed to protect fetuses when their mothers are declared terminally ill.

This represents a huge conundrum, complicated by the fact that Muñoz had declared her desire not to be kept alive by artificial means but had never put those wishes in writing.

Texas law has allowed hospitals to honor patients’ signed declarations, known as advance directives, since 1977, when Karen Ann Quinlan’s case became national news after she collapsed from a drug overdose and entered a permanent vegetative state. A prolonged battle ensued between Quinlan’s parents, who wanted to let her die, and her hospital about the right to disconnect her body from artificial support systems.

Muñoz’s case could have been quickly resolved except for her pregnancy. Her body should not be kept going by artificial means only to serve as a human incubator. To do so represents a perversion of motherhood and the natural life-death cycle.

Her husband, Erick, and her parents want all support systems disconnected so they can have closure. This newspaper believes their wishes should be honored.

At issue is a 1989 Texas law that blocks doctors from denying “life-sustaining treatment” to pregnant, terminally ill patients. There is no life to be sustained in Muñoz’s case, nor does she qualify as terminally ill. Her family members deserve the closure they seek so they can work through the pain of loss without this agonizing delay.

The hospital’s spokeswoman, J.R. Labbe, says there is no choice but to follow the law. The hospital is encouraged, she added, by reports that Erick Muñoz has hired legal counsel. The hospital believes the courts are the appropriate venue to resolve the matter.

Some might think this is an abortion issue. It is not. Sometimes, pregnant women die and take their fetuses with them to the grave. It is horrific to contemplate, but the natural process in this case is to let them go.

DIFFICULT DECISIONS

“This very emotional and personal crisis for the family is their responsibility. … This isn’t about pro-life or pro-choice. We want to say goodbye. We want to let them rest.”

– Ernest Machado, father of Marlise Muñoz, in an online posting

“Every day, we have patients and families who must make difficult decisions. Our position remains the same; we follow the law. It is our understanding Mr. Muñoz has retained legal counsel to help his family through this difficult situation. JPS is encouraged by this development because the courts are the appropriate venue to provide clarity, direction and resolution in this matter.”

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.